School of something FACULTY OF OTHER Institute for Transport Studies FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Pollution or congestion charging? Air quality measures and.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "School of something FACULTY OF OTHER Institute for Transport Studies FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Pollution or congestion charging? Air quality measures and."— Presentation transcript:

1
School of something FACULTY OF OTHER Institute for Transport Studies FACULTY OF ENVIRONMENT Pollution or congestion charging? Air quality measures and road pricing in Milan, Italy Giulio Mattioli ITS Seminar Series, 5 March 2015

3
More exceptional features: framed in the contest of air quality concerns introduced by right-of-the-centre city government (local) press very supportive of charging referendum promoted by environmental association pollution charging turned into congestion charging still little known internationally OECD International Transport Forum Award 2014 Milan’s experience with charging

5
1.Milan: background information 2.Pollution & congestion charging 2000-present referendum: reasons for high acceptability 4.The use of air quality measures in the policy debate Structure of the presentation

15
Charging area “historical city centre”, area within 16 th century city walls small: 8.2km 2, 4.5% of municipality (London: 22km 2, Stockholm: 47 km 2 ) but massive concentration of employment / population density during the day (central business district) concentration of households with high socio-economic status in the area

16
Ecopass: results Vehicle access to the charging zone: drastic drop in 2008 (-21%), then increase (but still by 2011) rapid increase in the share of exempted vehicles (2007: 50%; 2008: 75%; 2010: 90%) – fleet renewal PM 10 levels: estimated reduction of emissions produced within the area: -15% (2008) difficult to discern effects on measures of monitoring stations 2009: first European city to reach the threshold of 35 days; 2011: the 35-day threshold is reached by 7th February (worst result since 2006) Ruprecht et al. (2008): no significant difference in PM levels between Ecopass area and outside  heated public debate on ‘failure of Ecopass”

19
1.Wording on the ballot-papers 2.Simultaneity with other local & national referenda 3.Vote driven by political motives 4.Small charging area 5.Framing in terms of air quality (rather than congestion) 2011 Referendum: reasons for high acceptability

20
Comprehensive strategy - goals: Doubling of pedestrian areas by 2012 Doubling of 30km/h areas by 2012 Bike lanes network of 300km by 2015 Protection of all Bus lanes by 2015 Introduction of neighbourhood bus service Extension of bike sharing / car sharing services Subway service during the night Improving of taxi services 1. Wording on the ballot-paper..to be financed with new congestion charge (5-10€) for all vehicles + gradual extension of the area to outer ring Goal: -50% traffic, -50% polluting emissions

27
Supporters: Health impacts emphasised/exaggerated Scheme presented as a work in progress (or a foot in the door?) Both high and low PM levels are used to support upgrade/extension Opponents: Ecopass as a failed experiment (because of high PM) But proposed alternatives are even more radical: close to traffic entirely (at least part of) the city centre; traffic restrictions based on alternate number plates day (during periods of “environmental emergency”) Need for some form of traffic restriction not questioned Use of air quality evidence Ecopass ( )

28
Supporters: Attempt to decouple ‘congestion’ charging from pollution. New goals: traffic reduction, quality of urban environment still seizing every available piece of evidence to suggest impact on air pollution / health risk reduction Launched Black Carbon (BC) monitoring project (2012) Opponents: Remind high levels of PM / breach of EU limits Question the legitimacy of BC as an indicator of health risk Accuse city government of making instrumental use evidence / push forward hidden “anti-car” agenda Failed to gather enough signatures for a referendum Use of air quality evidence Area C(2012-present)

30
Invernizzi et al. (2011): “Traffic restrictions are an unpopular tool to mitigate urban air pollution, and a measurable improvement in air quality is needed to demonstrate the effectiveness of this measure. Previous attempts failed to detect measurable reductions of PM mass pollution within the areas subject to traffic restriction. However, black carbon, which is emitted primarily by traffic sources, could be a PM metric more suitable to demonstrate pollutant reductions” BC monitoring report (2012): -28/-40% BC in the charging area (as compared to outside) -75%/-78% on ‘carfree sundays’ (as compared to normal Sunday) no significant within-city variation in PM strong correlation between traffic levels and BC Black Carbon

33
Conclusions: Public and political acceptability EU air quality directives opened a “window of opportunity” for political entrepreneurs aiming to limit car use in Milan Framing of pricing debate in terms of air quality / health undermines legitimacy of outright opposition The terrain of conflict is often the use of air quality evidence All actors: opportunistic use of evidence. Use air quality measures that conform to their agenda Referendum results can be strongly influenced by wider political dynamics, especially when paired with other elections (cfr. Gothenburg)